W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > April 2010

Re: A Proposal for the Testing Framework

From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:12:02 +0200
Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <903FDE73-772E-4AC1-9BAE-F88B3938AB4F@robineko.com>
To: 이순호(Soonho Lee) <soonho@sktelecom.com>
Hi Soonho,

thank you for your offer.

On Apr 28, 2010, at 15:46 , 이순호(Soonho Lee) wrote:
> I will propose our web runtime engine, called WAPER, for the testing framework which tests our device API specifications.

There are actually two separate things here to consider when it comes to testing. One is which testing harness should we use (e.g. maybe QUnit: http://docs.jquery.com/QUnit ?), the other is which implementations we will run the tests against.

Unless I am mistaken WAPER is an implementation, and we will gladly run tests against it.

However before we get to that, we will need to write tests, and in order to write tests we should agree on some modicum of consistency as to how they are written (at the very least consistency on how they are opened and what the fail/pass results should look like so that they are easy for implementers to run). We don't need to reuse an existing harness (a lot of other groups use their own stuff), but if there's something that'd be good for us to pick up I'm all for it. I've found QUnit to be simple and workable (especially given that it has support for testing asynchronous requests with timeouts, which is lacking in some other solutions) but I haven't tested them all and I'd love to hear options.

Robin Berjon
  robineko — hired gun, higher standards
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 09:12:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:19 UTC